Author
Topic: Low Cost Launch Vehicles (Read 8162 times)

I've found on the NTRS, a rather interesting article dealing with replacing the Saturn Ib and V with a series of 'modular' low cost launch vehicles, some of which would use the S-IVb stage as an upper stage.

They were to feature a simplified guidance system and be made from cheaper (& possibly) heavier materials.

We need to see what low cost means. I have seen two different approaches:1) Falcon: low cost because COTS components, no top technology;2) Aquarius: low cost because of lower reliability, lower component quality.

My problem with #2 is: 1 ton payload is not a lot, I need multiple launches to my space station/fuel depot. Since the failure rate is 1/3, how many of those failures will be caused by failure of guidance system, failure of RCS, rupture of tanks, failure of docking ring... in proximity of my precious space station? Is this #2 concept viable at all?

They used duct tape to fix an ailing Apollo capsule ;-)Does duct tabe work in vacuum? I thought I heard otherwise during STS 117 tile repair activities.Regarding the guidance: they showed a tug to carry stuff to the target.And I think 1t of duct tape is a lot. Will be difficult to find many other low value payloads that you would accept a 1/3 failure rate for...

The LRVs did experience some minor problems, however. The rear fender extension on the Apollo 16 LRV was lost during EVA2 at station 8 when Young bumped into it while going to assist Duke. The dust thrown up from the wheel covered the crew, the console and the communications equipment. High battery temperatures and resulting high power consumption ensued. No repair attempt was mentioned. The fender extension on the Apollo 17 LRV broke when accidentally bumped by Eugene Cernan with a hammer handle. The crew taped the extension back in place, but due to the dusty surfaces, the tape did not adhere and the extension was lost after about 1 hour of driving, causing the astronauts to be covered with dust. For the second EVA, a replacement "fender" was made with some EVA maps, duct tape, and a pair of clamps from inside the Lunar Module - nominally used for the moveable overhead light. This repair was later undone so that the clamps could be brought back inside for launch. The maps were brought back and are now on display at the National Air and Space Museum. The abrasion from the dust is evident on some portions of the makeshift fender.

I've found on the NTRS, a rather interesting article dealing with replacing the Saturn Ib and V with a series of 'modular' low cost launch vehicles, some of which would use the S-IVb stage as an upper stage.

They were to feature a simplified guidance system and be made from cheaper (& possibly) heavier materials.

The file is about 16mb in size so hopefully you'll have a fast connection.

This was part of a series of studies that were triggered by the original 1966 Aerospace Corporation study of the "Big Dumb Booster" concept ("Design for Minimum Cost").

These efforts were quashed by the big-bad aerospace industry during the early 1970s, if Gregg Easterbrook's “Big Dumb Rockets" article for Newsweek (Aug. 17, 1987, p. 48) is to be believed. The real reason may have simply been that the 1972 decision to build Shuttle eliminated money for anything else.

BTW, the Easterbrook story help trigger an OTA investigation that produced the following report in 1989.